C. S. P. SINGH, J.

Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mangari Newada, Varanasi is a recognised institution and is governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the regulation framed the render. The petitioner in response to an advertisement for the post of an Assistant Teacher made an application for being appointed to the post. A selection committee was constituted and that committee selected the petitioner on August 7, 1972. The name of the petitioner for appointment to the post was forwarded to the District Inspector of School, Varanasi. along with the names of other candidates, who had also applied for appointment. The District Inspector cf School by order dated August 10, 1972 approved the selection and appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher. On May 25, 1973, a resolution was passed by the management termiinating the services of the petitioner and another teacher Hari Shankar Pandey. This was communicated by letter dated June 18, 1973. The resolution terminating the services of the petitioner was forwarded to the District Inspector of School, Varanasi, but he refused to accord approval by his order dated July 13, 1973. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred by the management before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. This appeal was allowed by the Director of Education by order dated May 13, 1975. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Education has been impugned by this petition. The ground on which the Director of Education allowed the appeal of the management is that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with Section 16-F (1) of the Act, and as such no approval for the termination of the service of the petitioner was necessary. In taking this view, the Deputy Director of Education has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Arya-Kanya Pathshala and another v. Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri and another 1971 A. L. J. 983. The institution, as we have seen is governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 16-F in so far as it is material to this case provides: -

". . no persons shall be appointed as a principal, Headmaster or Teacher of any recognised institution unless he-

(1) Possesses the prescribed qualification and has been exempted under sub-section (1) of Section 16-F;

(b) has been recommended by the selection committee constituted under sub-section (2) or (3), as the case may be of the said section, and approved in the case of Principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and in case of a teacher by the Inspector. . . . . . . . "

This provision clearly indicates that a person cannot be appointed as a teacher unless approved by the District Inspector of School. In the present case, the petitioner was given charge, and started working as a teacher before the approval of the District Inspector of School was accorded. In the case of Arya Kanya Pathshala and another v. Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri and another (Supra), it was held that approval of the District Inspector of School must be accorded before the appointment is made. Counsel for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as the petitioner started working as a teacher before the approval was given by the District Inspector of School, he did not acquire the status of a teacher and as such his services could be terminated by the management without approval of the District Inspector of School. Now, if a candidate is selected by the Selection Committee and approval is not accorded by the District Inspector of School, the candidate would not enjoy the status of a teacher. His appointment would be void (See State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 521. In such a case, the provisions of the regulations regarding approval of termination of his services would not apply. But, in our view the decision in the case of Arya Kanya Pathshala and another v. Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri and another (supra) cannot be appropriately applied to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document